United States v. Carlos Alberto Gascot Concepcion

No. 25-1256 (3d Cir. Mar. 10, 2026) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · March 10, 2026 · No. 25-1256

Summary

The Third Circuit affirmed Carlos Gascot Concepcion’s conviction for possession of more than one kilogram of cocaine with intent to distribute. The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession because no rational jury could find that Concepcion lacked intent to distribute. The court relied on the quantity, purity, packaging, branding, and transportation of the cocaine, as well as the limited evidence supporting personal use.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Writing for the Court
Porter, Circuit Judge; Hardiman, Circuit Judge; Bibas, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decision date
March 10, 2026
Docket number
25-1256
Procedural posture
Concepcion appealed his federal conviction and sentence, principally challenging the denial of his requested jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple possession.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion for the district court's decision not to provide a requested jury instruction.
Precedential value
Published and precedential
Parties
Carlos Alberto Gascot Concepcion v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

lesser included offense instructionsjury instructionscriminal procedurestandard of reviewevidence

Practice areas

Federal criminal procedureAppellate practiceCriminal evidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on simple possession as a lesser-included offense of possession with intent to distribute.
  2. Whether the evidence sufficiently disputed Concepcion's intent to distribute so that a rational jury could convict him of simple possession while acquitting him of possession with intent to distribute.

Holdings

  1. A district court must instruct on a lesser-included offense only when the evidence sufficiently disputes the element differentiating the greater and lesser offenses such that a rational jury could convict on the lesser offense and acquit on the greater offense. Merely presenting speculative or conclusory testimony is not enough to create the required dispute.
  2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct on simple possession because no rational jury could find that Concepcion lacked the intent to distribute the cocaine.

Key quotations

Rather, we simply hold that even if the evidence might conceivably support a conviction on the lesser offense, district courts should instruct the jury on that offense only where the differentiating elements of the charged offense are sufficiently in dispute. (at 5)
The District Court did not abuse its discretion by holding that, under the totality of the evidence, no rational jury could find that Concepcion lacked the intent to distribute the cocaine in his possession. (at 8)

Factual background

Agents arrested Concepcion at the St. Thomas airport while he was traveling to Puerto Rico with a suitcase containing 1,009.48 grams of cocaine with an 86.5% purity level. The cocaine was vacuum sealed, plastic-wrapped, packaged as a kilogram brick, and labeled with the brand "Psycho Bunny." Government expert testimony addressed the cocaine's value, quantity, purity, packaging, and typical distribution patterns. Concepcion argued that he intended to personally consume the cocaine, relying primarily on his father's testimony concerning his marijuana use and spending habits.

Procedural history

Concepcion was indicted in the District Court of the Virgin Islands for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. After the district court denied his request for a simple-possession instruction, the jury convicted him, and the court sentenced him to fifty-five months of incarceration and five years of supervised release. He appealed; he abandoned a separate challenge to the certification of the government's expert witness.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…